History of science, feedback welcome

Hi PF members!
I've recently been working on an image (see attached thumbnail) in which I try to include the most important/influential steps in the history of science. Now, I am very well aware that this is not easy (!) , and it will always be debatable and not without controversy; history is not easy, dating is not easy, the development of science is not linear and seldom depends on a small group of people. Nevertheless I have tried to follow these rules concerning every step in my image;

I essentially ignore any early ideas and theories on different matters, even if they were correct, and try to focus on

a) when an important scientific paradigm/theory can be considered to emerge/mature/become useful/widespread, or
b) when a hypothesis becomes confirmed,
c) balancing both macroscopics and microscopics
d) I've excluded inventions and technological advances (except tools/fire/wheel/language, they are only there as a placeholder for very early science)

Since the image has 22 placeholders I am forced to make decisions on which things to include/exclude, and this is always hard. Please note that I am aware that I have excluded many things. The image is intended to include the steps which are on the absolute frontline of science at that time, steps which dramatically expand that frontline and contribute greatly to the scientific knowledge. In other words, things that have crucially changed/improved science and/or the worldview.

I post this here on PF to get input from others, since I know there are lots of people with different knowledge here. What I would like to get feedback on is the following;

Are there any concepts not present in the image which can be considered important enough to include?

The criterion for inclusion should be that a concept should be so important that it almost could kick out another concept in the image. I am able to squeeze in a couple of more concepts, depending on when they occurred/where they'll fit in layout-wise (there is currently one empty placeholder). I'm thinking of perhaps e.g. biology/medicine; the image is rather weak in these areas.

I am interested what people have to say about the image, and I am open for suggestions, so any thoughts?

Thanks Ryan!
Scientific method; yes, this was actually the absolutely toughest topic for me to consider, since it has evolved over a long period of time. I selected the time of Francis Bacon during the scientific revolution. But maybe it would be better to choose something earlier? I'll ponder on it, and also hope to get more feedback.
DNA; good spotting, I'll definitely fix that. I suppose you mean Friedrich Miescher 1869? EDIT: new image with moved DNA.

I lost my internet connection while originally making a post here, so I have lost my motivation to retype it all :(

Basically, Watson, Crick, and Wilkins were awarded the Nobel Prize for their working model of the DNA double helix. They used evidence from people like Rosalind Franklin (who crystalized DNA and diffracted light through it to observe its pattern) to formulate their model. Franklin died before the Nobel Prize was awarded, otherwise she more than likely would have shared a part of the prize, considering Wilkins role in the model was that he helped Franklin with some of her further diffraction experiments.

I don't really see why you consider the number "e" to be very important. Surely it is important, but there are things in mathematics which were far more important and revolutionary. An obvious omission is (for example) the discovery of non-Euclidean geometries and differential geometry.

I don't really see why you consider the number "e" to be very important. Surely it is important, but there are things in mathematics which were far more important and revolutionary. An obvious omission is (for example) the discovery of non-Euclidean geometries and differential geometry.

I think one would have to have a parallel history of mathematics and perhaps mathematical physics, since they go hand-in-hand.

Somewhere I remember seeing a timeline chart of developments in mathematics, chemistry and physics, and a similar timeline of human developments separated geographically. It's interesting to see the parallels.

It was just forgotten for a while. Notice that he also had some notion of the galaxy.

You (King Gelon) are aware the 'universe' is the name given by most astronomers to the sphere the center of which is the center of the Earth, while its radius is equal to the straight line between the center of the Sun and the center of the Earth. This is the common account as you have heard from astronomers. But Aristarchus has brought out a book consisting of certain hypotheses, wherein it appears, as a consequence of the assumptions made, that the universe is many times greater than the 'universe' just mentioned. His hypotheses are that the fixed stars and the Sun remain unmoved, that the Earth revolves about the Sun on the circumference of a circle, the Sun lying in the middle of the Floor, and that the sphere of the fixed stars, situated about the same center as the Sun, is so great that the circle in which he supposes the Earth to revolve bears such a proportion to the distance of the fixed stars as the center of the sphere bears to its surface.

I don't really see why you consider the number "e" to be very important. Surely it is important, but there are things in mathematics which were far more important and revolutionary. An obvious omission is (for example) the discovery of non-Euclidean geometries and differential geometry.

I agree. I fitted in e since it doesn't take up much space in the image, and also to have at least some sort of representation of exponentiation/logarithms. I definitely considered non-Euclidean geometry, but I could not fit it in the image .

Astronuc said:

I think one would have to have a parallel history of mathematics and perhaps mathematical physics, since they go hand-in-hand.

Actually I am thinking of making another similar image for mathematics only . This first image is intended to be more of a general science/physics image, with some basic math concepts included.

Andre said:

Nope, 3rd century BCE Aristarchus. It was just forgotten for a while. Notice that he also had some notion of the galaxy.

Yes, but for spherical Earth I followed this rule; b) when a hypothesis becomes confirmed. AFAIK Eratosthenes did the first known validation of the hypothesis. Heliocentrism; I chose Copernicus because his publication sparked the subsequent work by others (e.g. Kepler, Galileo) which jointly confirmed the model. I'd prefer choosing a validation year, but I can't decide which one to choose, since there was a number of different observations which together led to the acceptance of heliocentrism.

Anyway, thanks for feedback, much appreciated! I'm still thinking of how to handle the scientific method, which Ryan mentioned. And I am still pondering here and there, so I am open for continued feedback. E.g. one thing I am considering is replacing neutrons with quantum field theory, perhaps.

Thanks to the feedback here, I've got a new version of my image which I'm more pleased with. I've omitted tools, fire, wheel and went for "early scientific method" (Edwin Smith papyrus). I've squeezed in non-Euclidean geometry since it is an important paradigm shift from previous geometry. I've also squeezed in quantum field theory, while managing to keep neutrons, which I did not want to omit.

His work, Mirifici Logarithmorum Canonis Descriptio (1614) contained fifty-seven pages of explanatory matter and ninety pages of tables of numbers related to natural logarithms. The book also has an excellent discussion of theorems in spherical trigonometry, usually known as Napier's Rules of Circular Parts.

Neither am I . It was basically the same thing with pi as with e, I fitted them in partly because they're so common in science/math and since they take up so little space in the image. But I could omit pi and consider it somewhat represented by "geometry".

NemoReally said:

Perhaps Archimedes might be more fittingly remembered for the method he used to determine pi or his works on hydrostatics and statics.

There are always things that are pretty important that have to be left out. Have you got to the point where for everything you put in you throw something out? You seem to have thrown out double-helix DNA (Watson-Crick). I think that is a mistake, there are things there that though important are indubitably less important. The structure threw strong light on the function but you haven't got anything on the discovery of the function: Miescher is just shrewd suspicion, how about Griffith, Avery, Hershey?

You haven't got anything for organic chemistry, nor X-rays, nor the atomic/molecular structure of matter Laue, Friedrich, Knipping, Braggs. If this has to all fit on a postcard I guess it's impossible.

I wouldn't agree that for something to be part of the History of Science it has to have fit into some present-day official formulation of The Scientific Method - take no notice of such exhortations!

Yes. It's far from a definitive history, it's just a brief history. But I'm thinking of replacing Electrochemistry and Electrolysis with Molecules and Organic Chemistry; the image already has a fair representation of "electrostuff". So I am definitely considering your suggestions, I think they are good, thanks!

Yes. It's far from a definitive history, it's just a brief history. But I'm thinking of replacing Electrochemistry and Electrolysis with Molecules and Organic Chemistry; the image already has a fair representation of "electrostuff". So I am definitely considering your suggestions, I think they are good, thanks!

But then the nature of ordinary matter is electrical, second layer of the onion, so that is hard to discard.

Now I've done a new version of the image, and I'm starting to get really pleased (I'm still open for feedback though - there's a placeholder line free atm). I had serious problems with deciding on a suitable entry for "Molecules", but finally I decided to go for Amedeo Avogadro (1811). Pi and e is still present, I wonder if anyone will object? I've also decided to make two final images when I'm done; one small and one large with a complete timeline below the "science knob".

Attached Files:

I've continued to work on the timeline/image (small/big version), and I will probably upload a new version today. Some more things have been rearranged; hopefully I'm getting close to the finished version :tongue2:.

It seems the more I dig myself into the history, the harder it gets. I have to start digging myself out now . There are still some people/fields I'd like to include, but they haven't found their place yet, like Hippocrates and Michael Faraday. Maybe they'll get into this image, I don't know.

It's been pretty interesting to dig into the history like this. I'd like to say some things I've noticed during my work with this thing; I already knew history isn't easy, but I was nevertheless astonished by the complexity of the history of science I encountered when I dug into the stuff.

I find the history of physics relatively easy, which is probably partly due to my particular interest in physics. But, gosh, I think the history of chemistry & biology seems really complex, there are so many different things connected to so many different people.

I also noticed that the history of math does not seem to be as easy as I thought; I noticed this when I looked into logarithms, e and complex numbers - it is almost like a long complex string of knots; one person contributes to a field in one place and ties a knot on the string, another person ties another knot somewhere else, and later, someone else ties the knots together. So it can be quite hard to build a coherent description of the history - which I somewhat fear since I'm thinking of digging into math history later :).

One other interesting thing which surprised me was the many profoundly important contributions that were made during the 1800s. I find the development of chemistry and biology during this century truly impressive.

Also, there is one short period which astonishes me in particular: 1896-1912. In 17 (seventeen!) years the world saw the discoveries of the atomic nucleus, subatomic particles, atomic structure, radioactivity, radiometric dating + quantum mechanics (!) + relativity (!). I find this short period simply outstanding! :surprised